Online Gambling Not Banned Yet

For the moment, the rush to legislate the ban on online gambling has been slowed. Senator John Warner, (R) from Virginia, has refused to allow a ban on online gambling to be tacked onto an upcoming defense bill. Opponents of online gambling were hoping to tack their measure on to a "must pass" bill but will apparently be forced to delay. Congress recesses in one week, giving only a few days left if this measure is to be passed before the November 7th elections.

What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[QuantumG (50515)]

Surely that's a big bloody hole in the legislative system.. why don't they patch it?

It's just crazy.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[Cylix (55374)]

It's a feature, not a bug!

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[Amazing Quantum Man (458715)]

Line-item was passed during the Clinton Administration. Some Congressmen objected, and SCOTUS eventually ruled that it was unconstitutional.

Much as I may like the concept of a line-item veto, as the Constitution currently stands, the SCOTUS ruling was correct IMHO (disclaimer - IANAL).

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[Cadallin (863437)]

It's meant to be a balance issue, so that a minority party can theoretically attach things they want to bills the majority "must pass." In reality, its gets used for this kind of moralistic bullshit, and for sneaky atrocity like attaching "Dump Nuclear Waste in Lake Michigan" to bills entitled "People Shouldn't Molest Babies."

Ultimately, I'd argue that its an ineffective band-aid on the cancerous sore that is our winner-take-all legislative system. We desperately need to have proportional represention. Like, you know, every free nation on Earth. But the powers that be are too entrenched in the two party system.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[jackbird (721605)]

Right, because in proportional systems, fringe parties never hold the mainstream hostage when it's time to form a government or elect a PM.

Re:America has a bill of Rights?

[Shihar (153932)]

They are NOT called "criminal combatants", they are called "enemy combatants". They get that title because they blatantly violate the Geneva Convention. In order to get Geneva Convention protection, you basically need to be either wearing a uniform and clearly marked as a combatant or you need to be a civilian. The Geneva Convention was created to give rules to warfare between two states with conventional armies. The idea behind the Geneva Convention was to try and minimize the loss of civilian life and to set up rules that allow for a smooth transition back to civilian government after the war is over. You can basically boil the rules down the rules of the Geneva Convention to the following:

1) No intentionally killing civilians.
2) Always mark yourself as a combatant (wear a uniform) so that civilians are not confused as combatants.
3) You must accept the surrender of uniformed combatants and you can't just execute them.
4) When the war is over you need to free the uniformed combatants.

The implication of these rules is that enemy spies do NOT receive Geneva Convention protection. During the Cold War when either side caught an enemy spy, they did NOT receive Geneva Convention protections. If an American spy was caught in Soviet Russia, we didn't make a stink about it if the Soviets tortured the spy, held the spy forever, or simply killed the spy. All sides agreed that spies do not get Geneva Convention status and so were not privy to receiving its benefits.

Now, we are in a new type of war. The US doesn't fight uniformed combatants. The US fights people that fight among civilians wearing civilian clothing. Clearly, these people, like spies, are blatantly violating the Geneva Convention. They can't be identified as combatants and intentionally try and pass themselves off as civilians. Hence, they get a new title called an "enemy combatant", which means that they roughly get treated like spies.

They don't get bill of rights protection because it is absolutely insane to even imply that in a war zone you need to read people their Miranda rights or get search warrants. Soldiers are not crime scene investigators, and crime scene investigators who can take proper evidence for a fair trial are not going to be doing their work in a war zone.

Enemy combatants (i.e. people fighting out of uniform) occupy a gray area that there are no rules for. There is no Geneva Convention rules that describe how to treat these people. There are no rules in general with how to deal with people who fight wearing civilian clothing in general. If the UN wanted to do something useful (god forbid), they would write up a code to deal with people who fight among civilians disguised as civilians.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[Aeron65432 (805385)]

Actually, they attempted to watch it once with the Line Item Veto Act [wikipedia.org] which gave the President authority to go through a bill and veto individual parts, part of the "Balanced Budget Act of 1997". The idea was to get pork barrel spending and these kind of riders out of important legislation. Ie- Bush could hypothetically have vetoed the online-gambling ban even if it was in a military appropriations bill. It was struck down in Federal court as unconstitutional.

Amusingly enough, the first senator to complain was Mr. Robert Byrd [wikipedia.org] who is notorious for being one of the worst for pork barrel spending [wikipedia.org]

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[Lehk228 (705449)]

what we really need is a single subject law, so any bill may only refer to one subject, any passed with multiple subjects would be considered void and must pass again as single parts

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[Pichu0102 (916292)]

Even better, tack something onto another must pass bill that says no riders whatsoever.
Then wait for the people in Congress to take a while scratching their heads about that one.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

I've always thought that American legislators were bored... I mean, if you're just going to vote on stuff, pass laws... BORING. So they decided to spice it up. Put in a few rules to turn the whole thing into a strategy game.

walking the line

[User 956 (568564)]

For the moment, the rush to legislate the ban on online gambling has been slowed. Senator John Warner, (R) from Virginia, has refused to allow the banning of online gambling to be tacked on to an upcoming defense bill.

What I don't "get" is that if they do eventually ban online gambling, what is the legal status of games like Second Life, which allow gambling in-world (in Linden Dollars, which you can then convert to US Dollars)? How will it even be possible to police that sort of thing given the open-ended nature of the game?

Re:walking the line

[bcat24 (914105)]

I doubt many of "them" could even get to Slashdot anyway. The tubes are pretty clogged-up these days, you know.

Before someone else posts it...

[Footix (972079)]

...I'll lay you 2-to-1 odds it doesn't pass.

What part of freedom don't they understand

[netbuzz (955038)]

There are more important issues out there, but few frost my behind as much as this one: I mean the opponents of online gambling are almost invariably the same blowhards who wrap themselves around the flag and lecture the rest of the world about what it means to be free. If we cannot decide for ourselves how to dispose of our disposable income, then in no way, shape or form can we be described as free. All forms of gambling should be legal, regulated and taxed. Use a slice of the tax revenue to help problem gamblers. Leave the rest of us alone.

Bravo John Warner

[Aeron65432 (805385)]

Honestly, the more and more I watch this man's moves, the more impressed I am.

He refused to cave to the Bush administration on torture.

Now, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he refuses to let a trivial non-issue be tacked on along with a government spending bill. Bravo, if only more people like him could be elected to the Senate.

Re:Bravo John Warner

[glesga_kiss (596639)]

Hold on now, he rebufed the bill not because he doesn't feel the idea is right, just that it has no bussiness in a defense appropriations bill.

Exactly. That's why he's probably one of the best guys in there. Most of the others would be happy to turn a blind eye to riders provided it was for something they want. The whole "relative morality" debate. If what you say above is true, then we need more folk like him, regardless of their personal viewpoints.

Mindboggling to an European

[Eivind (15695)]

Your legislative process is, frankly, mindboggling to most Europeans. It is not clear to me why it makes sense to make a single vote on issues such as: "Should we spend $500 million more on the war in Iraq and ban online gambling ?"

To any sensible observer these would appear to be two completely separate questions, thus it'd make sense to vote on them separately, I *completely* fail to see the supposed benefits of this "rider"-system.

You even frequently see semi-controversial stuff "attached" to the most obscure nobody-cares piece of legislation in existence, hoping that it'll get passed before somebody notices or something. Hello ? The entire *point* of a democracy is that people *should* notice the controversial issues, debate them, and then vote on them.

Can somebody with an insigth please explain what the benefits are ? To outsiders, frankly, it just seems completely ridicolous.

Re:lame

[JavaBrain (920722)]

My understanding is that online gambling can never be fair, since multiple PC's can be used to play networked games at the same table (in poker, for example) sharing their cards with each other and improving their odds over the "honest" players.

So yes I think that is a problem.

Re:lame

[QuantumG (50515)]

The players are adequately warned. They know the risks and they still want to play. It's not for the government to make their decision for them.

Re:lame

[IAmTheDave (746256)]

It's not for the government to make their decision for them.

Not to mention, WTF does it have to do with a defense bill?

Nothing related to Congress and our current govn't offends me more than the unchallenged ability to "tack on" legislation for topic X that has piss-all to do with the main topic of the bill at hand.

Congressman A: Here's a bill allocating $50m for breast cancer research!

Congressman B: Great! I'd like to add a rider that allocates $10m in federal funding for building a bridge somewhere in my state - oh, and my brother-in-law like totally has a construction company!

Re:lame

[AuMatar (183847)]

And when thats discovered, accounts get banned. In real casinos, people play as teams and communicate with each other through codes or just by avoiding each other and splitting profits later. Its no more risky online.

Re:lame

[by Anonymous Coward]

But won't you think of the children?!??!!?

MY GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!??!?!?!

Please, nanny government, please make my decisions for me because I'm a complete and utter retard and can't make them on my own.

Re:lame

[truthsearch (249536)]

I doubt the proposed ban of online gambling has anything to do with bots. I'm sure it has more to do with collecting money. It's very hard (or impossible) to tax.

Here's whats going on...

[Marnhinn (310256)]

To answer some of your questions... (I work somewhere on the Hill).

Senators or at least the few that I know or have come in contact with, usually have some sort of philosophy that they follow. This philosophy or set of beliefs serves as a guide on how they will vote. Occasionally you will get someone that is easily influenced by newspapers or political lobbies, but that is in all actuallity, not as common as most people think (which is why when it happens it's big news). There are very strict rules about what kind of gifts politicians and their staff (Senate Staff is limited to 50$ for gifts at receptions) can accept and what they can't.

For the most part, legislation is not written by Senators (Rep's may write their own). Usually there is a Legislative Assistant(s) or Legislative Director in the office that will write the actual bill or ammendment. The Senator will then review it, and if he / she approves it - it will be submitted to where ever it needs to go (usually a committee of sorts). Often they are attached to other bills, since the legislative process is very slow (and attaching it to something may speed it up).

Now, as it is election time, many people that are up for re-election are submitting all sorts of things. However, they aren't trying that hard to have them get passed (thankfully - or I'd have no free time), just submitting them so they can claim to have done some work on a certain issue that they may feel their constituents care about (or more likely matches their ideas). Lame Duck session in December, is when the outgoing folks actually sit down and try to get this crap passed.

So you can assume, that this bill was introduced by someone that believes gambling is wrong. It has nothing to do with the mail that they get, the phone calls people make or the faxes that come in. They don't even see most of those - interns and other staff handle them (although a few Senators actually read a sampling of handwritten mail each week). The politician usually gets a report each week of what mail came in, what issues were popular and what was the stance of the mail (for or against). Usually batch letters (meaning large bunches of faxes / letters / postcards that are all the same ) are not included in that count (cause people often send them in without actually reading them or knowing much about the issue, and mail from someone other then a constituent (meaning outside the politicians district - exceptions being the VA and Natural Resources Committees) or someone that did not put a real mailing address (like the people that always sign with their email address) is ignored. In the event that the politican does not have an opinion on something yet, this mail report will serve to influence their opinion in addition to the research and hearings that they or their staff will conduct. However, their opinion is usually in line with their established philosophy. Long story short, this ammendment was simply so someone could satisfy a mark on their philosophy checklist (most likely), and that is why it was rejected by the Senator (who dislikes this sort of stuff) and not because of some lobbying group.

The best way to stop these things, is to either write large amounts of handwritten mail to your senator / rep (not other peoples), or simply vote them out during elections time. Problem is -- most people aren't informed enough to actually know what's going on (or at least that is what I see from DC). It's easiest to contact your Senator / Rep at a state office also (if they have some), since most of them spend weekends and when session is out at home.

Re:The US is not a Democracy

[fingusernames (695699)]

More pointedly, and something largely forgotten today, the United States is a federation of SOVEREIGN states -- the federal government is a creation of the people acting through their states. Americans vote for federal representatives as citizens of states first and foremost: Congress by districts that are contained within states, the shape of which decided by state legislatures (though sometimes vetted by federal courts), and the President via electors that represent a state's voters. The elections, while authorized by the federal constitution, are governed by state legislatures. (Note: that is an important legal distinction given Bush v. Gore. The Supremes ruled, correctly IMO, that as federal elections are authorized by the federal constitution, conferring power directly to state legislatures, original review must be via federal courts, not state.)

These states agreed to vest particular portions of sovereignty in the federal government through a written agreement: the United States Constitution. One interesting facet of the federal constitution that many don't reflect upon is the amendment process: STATES have the final word on the shape of the federal constitution. Not Congress.

While the people at large have basically forgotten these facts, and the Congress and President run rampant over them, the courts do from time to time surprise people and enforce the consequences of our nature of government, much to the dismay of those who would have us forget that the federal government is not THE Government.

Larry